New NSF study on gender and science

[bug_girl]

actually, look at the changes in medicine in the last decade.
The hours of residents have been reduced because of sleep deprivation accidents. a greater emphasis on patient care and mental health has grown.
I think we get better care, not worse.

You haven't addressed my argument that having only one way of doing things is a less robust way of doing science.

You are just arguing for the status quo, because it is profitable.

 

[pgwenthold]

actually, look at the changes in medicine in the last decade.
The hours of residents have been reduced because of sleep deprivation accidents. a greater emphasis on patient care and mental health has grown.
I think we get better care, not worse.

None of this was done because of the health of the residents, but only because it endangered health of other patients. Even given that, the community considers it a partially acceptable risk.

You haven't addressed my argument that having only one way of doing things is a less robust way of doing science.

There hasn't been much to address. You haven't provided any reasons to think that it is true.

You are just arguing for the status quo, because it is profitable.

While it is profitable, that is not why I say it is going to stay. I say it is going to stay because there are people willing to play the game to make it profitable. OTOH, I don't see why it is wrong. Why shouldn't the system reward productivity and success?

Actually, something just dawned on me: if, as you say, faculty could produce more and better science if they had more personal life, then they should do that. More and better science would be more productive, and help achieve the goal. Remember, tenure decisions are going to be made on accomplishment and success, not on how many hours you spend at work getting it. Therefore, if home life helps you be more productive, then the current system supports it.

 

[drkitten]

You haven't addressed my argument that having only one way of doing things is a less robust way of doing science.

You are just arguing for the status quo, because it is profitable.

I'm sorry, bug_girl, but I don't think I quite understand your criticisms, or even what you're criticising.

First of all, there's a big difference between "tenure" and "the standards required to make tenure"; are you criticising the existence of the tenure system itself -- the idea that scholars should be able to pursue their researches without fear of political interference? Or are you criticising the current standards for achieving the protection that tenure affords?

Assuming the latter, what criterion would you use to evaluate whether or not someone was a successful scholar other than the success of his/her scholarship? I think the "problem" works out to the simple economics of scarcity -- given that universities can't afford to grant tenure to everyone, there are a limited number of tenured slots available, and so they will almost inevitably go to the people who compete the hardest for them. This is no different from any other competition -- to make partner, to get a starting position on the team, to get to play for the Berlin Phil, or to get that lucious sales bonus....

 

[pgwenthold]

I think the "problem" works out to the simple economics of scarcity -- given that universities can't afford to grant tenure to everyone, there are a limited number of tenured slots available, and so they will almost inevitably go to the people who compete the hardest for them.

Just to clarify what you are saying (because I probably misread it at first), universities most certainly _can_ afford to give tenure to everyone in a tenure track position (but of course, not everyone in general). The standards are high, but as you note, it is an issue of scarcity - there are only few slots available, but a ton of pool of applicants willing to do what it takes to get them. As such, they can afford to have high standards - if someone doesn't live up to them, regardless of the reasons, they can find someone who will.

In the end, because of the competition, the ones who succeed at the university will be both very good at what they do and very driven to succeed. Someone who doesn't have the ability won't succeed, regardless of how hard they work. Similarly, there are those who are off the scale brilliant but don't do enough to succeed, and they don't make it either. I know examples of both types.

To me, saying that a faculty member doesn't have to be strongly driven to succeed makes about as much sense as saying they don't have be as smart. Why give up on either when there are so many people out there who will give you both?